Talk:Aspect ratio (image)/Archive 1

Acronym
The search term OAR should not lead here. It should lead to a disambiguation page, as it could pertain to a paddle or "Of a Revolution" as well as this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.41.139 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 10 November 2005

upload
I uploaded a new version of the 4_3 and 16_9 example files. The old ones were too small and fuzzy.

Thewikipedian 4 Jul 2005

2.35 vs. 2.39
Modern anamorphic films are 2.39 - see Anamorphic widescreen, under the section entitled "2.35, 2.39, or 2.4?" before making any further addenda w/r/t this issue. Thanks. --Girolamo Savonarola 12:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

-- Ummm... said article has no such section. However, according to http://www.dvdfile.com/news/special_report/production_a_z/anamorphic.htm, the number is 2.35; additionally, you'll find all three numbers on the backs of various DVD cases. For example, Jaws claims a ratio of 2.35:1, whereas Ghostbusters claims 2.40:1. What say we drop this mess and say that the true number is a point of contention? (G-Max) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.125.132 (talk) 04:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The section still exists; the article title is now anamorphic format. And the numbers are sourced to SMPTE standards. Generally speaking, review websites are poor sources for technical details; the DVD box usage merely because the phrase has become convention, even though the number no longer corresponds to the format. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record, not everyone (apparently) uses the most recent SMPTE standards. A comparison of the DVD releases of Ghostbusters 1 and 2 reveals that GB1 was shot in 2.39, whereas GB2 went back to 2.35; this was found by sharpening the edges, measuring the width of the black bars to the nearest pixel, and doing l33t maths regarding anamorphosis. Suffice it to say that GB2 had more black stuff on the sides and less on the top and bottom than GB1 did. This information is reflected on the backs of the slimcases in the Double feature Gift Set, though the 2.39 was indeed rounded up to 2.40 for GB1. However, this is also based on the assumption that the people who encoded these DVDs knew what the hell they were doing. I will analyze more movies when I get the chance. 71.116.111.36 (talk) 20:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC) G-Max


 * Feel free to do so at your leisure, but also be aware that it won't be permissible to use it within the article, per WP:NOR. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In film, aspect ratios have to do more with exhibition rather than production. (They are now quite often shot in 4:3 Super35, in fact.) Alas, many cinemas have screens with non-standard aspect ratios and DVD transfers are not infrequently fouled up. While the real-world imprecision might be worth noting this in the article, the standards themselves are pretty clear, no matter how popular and widespread the myths. A related but separate question is how technically picky to be about some of these things. For example, the 4:3 ratio of television refers to the nominally visible part of the full analog raster. The aspect ratio of a "4:3" DVD image is actually a tiny bit different because a few scan lines are omitted (at least in NTSC) and the 720 horizontal pixels actually include a tiny bit of the horizontal blanking interval. (This is why pixel aspect ratios aren't what you might otherwise think.) DGaryGrady (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

2560x1080 (displays) = 2.37 (~21:9) ratio and use of the overline in decimal notation
Why represent a decimal value like 1.$\overline{3}$ as 1.3$\overline{3}$? I know they represent the same value, however, is the redundant ".3" necessary for clarity? Gatortpk (talk) 05:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to ask if inserting "(exactly 2.$\overline{370}$)" or "(exactly 2.370$\overline{370}$)" in the discussion of 21:9 ratio (third paragraph) would be a bit too much? That is, changing "though the resolution is more precisely 2560x1080 = 2.37" to "though the resolution is more precisely 2560x1080 = 2.37 (exactly 2.$\overline{370}$)". Gatortpk (talk) 05:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 2.$\overline{370}$ would make more sense to me than 2.370$\overline{370}$, although I am not aware of any "official" rules in the matter. Clarification would be appreciated. Twipley (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Spherical vs. anamorphic widescreen
I deleted the seperate spherical 2.35 and anamorphic 2.35 (and it really would have to be done for both 2.35 and 2.39) sections from the historically used list, since the origination method ultimately has nothing to do with the way they are projected - whether anamorphic, Super 35, or Techniscope, all prints intended to be shown in a full widescreen projection wind up as an anamorphic print. I think that discussion of origination methods would be better suited to separate articles. --Girolamo Savonarola 15:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should try to separate out origination and projection formats. I wonder, should we make an effort to consolidate the content here on wikipedia with the content on the Movie Making Manual wikibook?  In particular, there is a growing section on Cameras and Formats.  Thanks, Dan aka jack 17:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Clarification
Might this line be more clearly stated? --Jeremy Butler 12:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It was filmed in Super 35 (1.33:1 aspect ratio) and, in addition to being presented in cinemas and television in the original aspect ratio of 2.35:1, it was also broadcast without the matte its original aspect ratio release had.


 * Two things - one, Super 35 is usually (though not always) 3-perf, which is not 1.33. In fact, it's usually not even necessary to state Super 35's aspect ratio - it is not the intended final image. Most 1.85 films, for example, are actually shot in 1.37 and then cropped to 1.85 in the projector aperture mask. Therefore, you need to research the tech specs behind Gladiator through a recognized industry source (IMDb may be wrong, it's not uncommon) - usually interviews with the director of photography or editor, or sometimes even projectionist chatter (film-tech.com) are good sources as to what actually was used. If it was 4-perf Super 35, then the TV version of Gladiator would have been taken from the full frame. If it was 3-perf Super 35, then they obviously cropped the sides.


 * Two, as has been stated before, no current widescreen films are 2.35. I know, i know, the box may indeed say 2.35 on it, but in reality the aspect ratio is 2.39. It's one of those nitpicky things that most people in the industry didn't really find out about. Basically, the theatrical projection standard was slightly altered to crop the top and bottom just a tiny bit more so as to hide flashing from splices. It's a very common mistake for someone to still call anything anamorphic 2.35 - even those who know the difference oftentimes use 2.35 colloquially just so that they don't have to go through the lengthy explanation I just did. But trust me, even if the DVD cover artists don't know - Gladiator, along with all other anamorphically projected films in the past 35 years, is a 2.39 film. --Girolamo Savonarola 17:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yep. But this sentence is still confusingly worded, I think.  I was hoping the original author (not me) would clarify it a bit for readers not well-versed in film technology. --Jeremy Butler 20:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Basically it comes down to this - most films are shot with a frame that includes a lot of image shot that isn't ultimately seen on the screen in the theater. For some of these films, when they show a 4:3 version for TV, instead of cropping the sides, the filmmakers have issued a copy which actually contains more of the frame which was originally unused in the theatrical version. Now, it is generally considered that the theatrical version is the intended aspect ratio, but that sometimes the filmmakers would rather add more to the top and/or bottom of the frame than take away from the sides. Still, it's a tricky deal since you can't really compose a frame for two aspect ratios, much less doing so for all the shots in any given film. So you do get "more" of the picture, but it's generally not the composition as it was fully intended. Does that clarify things or just make it more confusing? --Girolamo Savonarola 17:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Alrighty... I've made an attempt to clarify the wording in the original. See what you think.  --Jeremy Butler 12:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

3:2 Aspect Ratio
Was desiring to learn more about aspect ratios and made Wikipedia, as usual, my first research choice. But I noticed the aspect ratio on which I was looking at the page (3:2) was not listed under commonly used. This is the aspect ratio for my (and, as far as i know, all) Apple Powerbook G4s. My resolution is 1280x854, but I could bump it down to 1152x768 (an extended version of the extremely common 4:3 display resolution of 1024x768). I've added this ratio, but as I do not own many computers, I do not know which manufacturers use this ratio besides Apple. Atchius 22:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It is currently listed as a common aspect ratio, both in the text and in the "Five common aspect ratios" image on the right. However, the article mentions it only in relation to camera photography. Maybe it could mention that the iPhone uses it too (and maybe even mention the Flag of Europe?). --82.171.70.54 (talk) 10:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Neutral point of view (NPOV)
This article must maintain a neutral point of view. It is not the place to make arguments for or against widescreen. Several recent edits need to be modified to make the article adhere to NPOV. --Jeremy Butler 13:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I deleted my 'Comparing aspect ratio' section, because the newer picture is not as biased, because it shows each picture as the same size (I think). Last Avenue 00:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The new picture is biased, because it's a simple geometrical fact that the rectangle the closest to a 1:1 aspect ratio will have the largest area inside it. This belies the fact that, for instance, a 2.39ratio anamorphic 35mm film print actually uses more frame area than 1.37...but then on the other hand 1.37 (again on a film print) will use more of the frame than 1.66 or 1.85. The basic problem is that there's no really good way to resolve the issue - what should you bias it on? Film frame area? Comparative size on a theatrical screen? Comparative size on a TV? I'm kinda uncertain as to how to resolve this: as a filmmaker, my personal preference is towards a constant-height comparison, as that's how they would compare in a theater. But I also understand that most people think about it more as a video issue, and certainly in that regard, watching a 2.39 film with letterboxing forces a loss in screen real estate for the benefit of seeing the entire frame. (This also brings up the whole philosophical issue of how to ideally deal with a 4:3 frame with a widescreen TV...) Anyway, shall we have a think? Girolamo Savonarola 04:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm... maybe include several pictures, including the current one, under heading 'comparing aspect ratios'? One would be the current one (constant-diagonal), one would be constant-height, one would be constant-width, and the last be constant-size? Then, the constant-size or -height would be the 'main' picture at the top of the page. Last Avenue 23:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I added picture where cutting was done in favour of 4:3 ration instead of 16:9. In adition I hope someone rewrites this section so people understand that different ratio aspects don't mean different resolutions. (edit. I will add picture when I become confirmedmember, whenever that is ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockman47 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Aspect ratio should be measured in width, thus the height is always considered :1, when it comes to appertures(sp?) it is possible for a 4:3 to have higher resolution than a 16:9 image, but that is resolution and not aspect ratio related, aspect ratio should always be compared with equal height. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.16.112 (talk) 09:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Equal-area (equal-resolution) picture
I've come up with an equal-area image spec, as follows:

Image size: 640x359

4:3 (red) | 478x359 | 171602 pixels 16:9 (orange) | 552x311 2.39 (blue) | 640x268 | 171520 pixels
 * 1.85 (turquoise) | 563x604


 * 1.85 might be redundant.

At this rate, I think this resolution is OK for now. Last Avenue 23:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Paper sizes and desktop resolution
I think that we should ditch most of the material here relating to paper sizes. First of all, it's already covered in paper size much better than we do, and we do link to that article already. Second, the aspect ratios image for that (the gray rectangles one) is badly placed and has little bearing on the subject discussed here. AND is written improperly - the 4:3 box is actually 3:4, and I can see that very well could be confusing and counter productive for this article. (The image was created for a separate article on the .de Wikipedia, IIRC, so that would explain a lot...)

I'm also a bit split on whether or not so much of the computer material should be here. What do y'all think? Girolamo Savonarola 01:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Columbia widescreen.jpg
Image:Columbia widescreen.jpg has some distortion on the right side -- a greenish vertical stripe. It should be fixed or replaced. --Jeremy Butler 13:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I was wondering about that image too, but for different reasons. The caption states that it's a NASA image, however I can tell it's (also?) a screenshot from Orbiter (www.orbitersim.com) which is not to my knowledge affiliated with NASA. Has NASA been publicizing the Orbiter simulator? Where is the image from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.141.13 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 22 May 2006

"common widescreen" and 2.35/2.39
I reverted the last edit today b/c 1) it is both very POV and factually inaccurate to call 1.78 "common widescreen". Common video widescreen, yes, but among film not even close. 2) I think you're just making the 2.35/2.39 issue way more confusing, and furthermore the issue is discussed already on the page (and the anamorphic widescreen page). Encouraging people to continue to use the 2.35 misnomer only creates less clarity about which one is truly being discussed/used. For instance, hard matted Super 35/Techniscope films are still hard matted to 2.39, NOT 2.35. But because you call it 2.35, it only breeds confusion. Are the films being shot today 2.39? Yes. So let's call it 2.39 and talk about those films there. Girolamo Savonarola 22:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello, yes the edit was intended to convey the idea of "common video/TV widescreen", as opposed to "common film standard" (this article is about all aspect ratios, not just films).  16:9 as a term is mentioned more often than any of the other ratios on the list, which should be given its due somehow, such as bolding 16:9.
 * The treatment of 2.35:1 calls for caution. I understand the concern to emphasize what is technically accurate, but 2.39 is simply not a term that is used by the general public, so 2.35 calls for more disambiguation: 2.39:1->74,800 hits2.35:1->2.4m hits. Whether we object to the practice or not, it is 2.35:1, not 2.39:1, that appears on the cases of movie videos.  2.39 does not actually appear under imdb's list of DVD aspect ratios.  This is the way it is, and having a clause like "2.35 : 35 mm anamorphic prior to 1970" is more confusing to readers who are looking  up 2.35 for the first time after reading about a recent film.  It is not fair to expect all readers of this section to have read the anamorphic widescreen article. For more clarity, the first statement after 2.35 should point out that "2.35" is a claimed aspect ratio of modern films, followed by statements which elaborate on the inaccuracy. Shawnc 05:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but if you pop on over to cinematography.com, where working camerapeople actually discuss technical issues (or cinematography.net for that matter), they very often bring it up as 2.39 or 2.4. As for the IMDb, it is an issue that I have brought up with them before, and I've been told by them that they are aware of the issue and that they can't deal with it at the moment due to database limitations but it is on their to-do list. (IMDb has a good amount of inaccuracies to begin with.) Google tests are not absolute standards. ("the Google test checks popular usage, not correctness.")
 * For example, most people refer to 1.37 as 1.33, but I'm sorry, it's wrong and I'm going to edit any articles I see which incorrectly use it. We have a whole section on the 2.35/2.39 issue on Anamorphic widescreen. If an encyclopedia is not going to discuss what is factually and objectively accurate, then what use is it? The general public is wrong, and the article explains this. There is no reason to perpetuate misnomers simply on the basis of their popularity. Girolamo Savonarola 09:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think there is a mix up here over "correctness" and "readability": we're not saying "what is known as 2.35:1 is correct". The section is about common ratios, not "factual" ratios.  The statement "2.35 is a commonly claimed aspect ratio" is not logically wrong, but is a fact about a situation.  This and the statement "What is commonly known as 2.35 today is actually 2.39" are both factually true.  Do you see what I mean?  We must not assume that readers have read about the 2.35/2.39 issue on "anamorphic widescreen", and we're not just a site for camerapeople, but for everyone. The 2.35:1 label is too common for it to be treated as a footnote, and treating any esoteric usage as the only acceted terminology is not very NPOV.  The following post on alt.video.dvd may illustrate the readers' thoughts:

Poster1: There are current three aspect ratios used for movies. The first is 4:3... The second is 1.85:1... The third is 2.35:1. This has pretty much become the "de facto" standard for very wide-screen theatrical movie projection...

Poster2: Extremely minor correction #3: as of 1971, this was changed to 2.39:1, though the "2.35:1" label sticks for some reason. (The image's height was slightly reduced to hide bad splices.)

Poster3: Extremely minor, tiny, minuscule and otherwise not really a correction. The 2.39:1 ratio is often referred to as 2.40:1. These are film makers, not mathematicians

Poster4: Considering the margins of error involved in theatrical projection it's moot anyway. Also, AVSforum.com is not disreputable and is larger than cinematography.com by hits, and they follow the 2.35 designation anyway. 2.35 is therefore just a naming convention, and readers should be able to find what they are looking for first, and then be informed about the details. Part of being NPOV is representing different points of views, including the ones which are popular but wrong, and say so (assuming of course that they are wrong, which in this case we're not in disagreement). If erroneous ideas could not be elaborated on, however popular they are, many of the articles on this site would not exist, including many sections about religions and mythologies. It is arguably irresponsible for us to treat the 2.39 designation as if it was a standard terminology when the reality is not so.

I also received the following feedback: "They are both correct, sorta. The exact frame from a scope element is 2.34 and change, rounded to 2.35:1. The SMPTE projection aperture is 2.39 and change, rounded to 2.40:1 (this to cover the errant splice line).  If you are talking about the film frame, it is correct to call it 2.35:1. If you are talking about the projected frame, or perhaps even the widescreen video transfer if it is done to SMPTE framing, then 2.39 or 2.40:1 is correct."

The following is what I think the 2.35 section needs: clearly pointing out that the number in practice refers to one of several things, along with a link to Anamorphic_widescreen. Since the issue is complicated, we should simply say so and guide the reader to the full explanation. Shawnc 21:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Super 16
I added this line :

It also can be blown up to 35 mm for theatrical release and therefore is also used for feature films.

Please cleanup if needed(english is not my native language)

... and hello to everybody, my first contribution... EDIT : It was,but posted in head instead of bottom sorry. Laurent.a — Preceding undated comment added 23:02, 28 January 2006

"Academy flat"
"Academy flat" is not an actual standard-practice term - to my knowledge, it started to circulate online on cinephile websites. However, Academy ratio is 1.37, and "flat" ratio is usually defined as 1.85, and each of these are terms commonly used. "Flat" actually originates from the 1950's, when Cinerama and competing formats oftentimes were projected on curved screens (including the original anamorphic format, Cinemascope, IIRC...). Since the Academy ratio died out almost overnight, "flat" quickly became associated with the 1.85 ratio, as it became the de facto ratio projected on a flat screen back then. The curved screens died out within about a decade, but the name stuck largely because the only other ratio regularly in usage by then was anamorphic. Hence most commercial cinemas today are only equipped to show "scope" (2.39) or "flat" (1.85). Academy has absolutely nothing to do with it, and with Super 35 and 3-perf there's a very good chance that many, if not most, of today's 1.85 films were never even originated in an Academy ratio frame intended to be soft-matted to begin with. I hope that clarifies the matter. Girolamo Savonarola 18:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely correct, there is no "Academy flat" ratio. This is a misnomer derived from "Academy aperture" (which you correctly put at 1.37:1, although it is commonly used to represent 1.33:1 as well) being the normal camera aperture for 1.85:1 "flat" films. Three-perf is rare in theatrical films. Scope, however, is 2.40:1 (not 2.39) - has been since the SMPTE change in the early seventies (although people still refer to it as 2.35:1). Also, Super35 is not used for 1.85:1 theatrical films. Super35 is used for commercials, music videos or "scope" (2.40:1) theatrical pictures. The term "Flat" has been placed back in the article, but "Academy flat" is not a correct term. LACameraman 20:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the backup. Just a few points back, however - 3 perf, along with Super 35, is now becoming more and more common in the wake of DI. And also, Super 35 is not a format per se, and can be used for any ratio desired - scope being just one of them. It is perfectly possible (and common) to use it for 1.85, and again, this may be more desirable now if one is to proceed to a DI in any case. It is usually used in conjunction with 3-perf as well, since neither format is projectable and requires some form of intermediate conversion, so most projections take advantage of the one to use the other as well, thus gaining either cost savings in negative footage used and additional negative frame space. Furthermore, the SMPTE standard is 0.825 in by 0.690 in, which after unsqueezing is 2.39, not 2.40. However, many DPs round the 2.39 up to 2.4, which sometimes is also referred to as 2.40, although using the additional zero would in fact be mathematically inappropriate. To split hairs... Girolamo Savonarola 20:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow. Always nice when we can get a solid discussion flowing, always helps to refine these articles. What follows is, in no way, intended to be agressive - merely arguing the facts. I appreciate the discussion. Okay... In response to the above - it's not DPs that are rounding 2.39 to 2.40, I'm going by the official ASC specs, derived from SMPTE standards. 2.39:1 is not an official designiation, 2.40:1 is. I believe the actual anamorphic factor (usually referred to as 2x) is actually 2.007 or 2.008 - not 2.0. That small factor does change to a 2.4 when multiplied by the 1.1956 aspect ratio of .825 x .690 "cinemascope" frame.


 * Hmm. Never heard about the anamorphic power being off from 2x. I'm not saying it isn't so, but if there isn't a proper reference to that, I'd rather stay on the side of caution, as it doesn't usually appear in the technical literature. Fair? Girolamo Savonarola 22:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This article by John Pytlak at Kodak seems to clearly discuss 2.39 and 2x squeeze in relation to a proposed format which has yet to arise. He's a well-respected tech head there. Girolamo Savonarola 23:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Good grief. That's the first time I've seen John refer to 2.39. I consulted with John when compiling data for the 9th edition of the ASC Manual's aperture list. I was frustrated by the lack of consistent data then and I am again now. I propose to keep the ratio at 2.40:1 in the article, but make a reference to 2.39:1. Perhaps something along the lines of: "2.39:1, more commonly referred to as 2.40:1." Rob Hummel and I went over the aperture list, along with Stephen Burum, with a fine-tooth comb (cleaning up errors from other editions and SMPTE changes). 2.40:1 was the official ratio used in the manual. LACameraman 22:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh, John's always got some surprises. ;) The "2.39, more commonly..." phrase is fine by me, if you want to edit it to that. As you probably know, the change from 2.35 to 2.39/2.40 was merely giving the projection aperture mask less height to help cover distracting in-frame splices. Nothing about the glass or camera gate has changed since the late 1950s. By the way, if you've worked a lot on things like apertures for "The Bible", you might want to give list of film formats a look. I spent months working on that, and I have to say that I'm not totally satisfied with some of the specs; got a lot of conflicting information from reputable sources. (Though I have to say I usually favored the ASC - and most of the conflicts didn't involve the Manual anyway.) Thanks again! Girolamo Savonarola 00:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to question your terms a bit. I would argue that 3-perf is not "common," although it is being used more than it was in the past 20 years with the prevelance of DIs. I would also highly question Super 35 as used for anything other than 2.40:1. It is possible, but certainly not "common." I am not personally aware of any Super 35 films that are intended for theatrical projection at 1.85:1. Doing so would require a DI or optical printer step and, speaking as a cinematographer, I see very little (if any) advantage in doing so. That certainly doesn't mean it doesn't happen - I'm not privy to every movie - and it certainly is possible to do, but I would question caling it a "common" practice. Going through the last 18 months of American Cinematographer Magazines (Jan 05 - Jun 06), there is not one reference to a film shot Super 35 for 1.85:1. Plenty of Super 35 for 2.40:1 - at least one per issue, if not two or three (which I would therefore call "common"). There was one article on Super 35 for 1.78:1 (16:9) for television (Rome (Sep 05)), but not for theatrical release. Even 3-perf is not "common" yet, especially not for theatrical films. In the 18 months of AC issues there were three instances of 3-perf films (out of about 54 films, or so, covered), one of them for television (Into the West (June 05) 3-perf for 16:9), two for theatrical release (The Cave (aug 05) and Lucky Number Slevin (Apr 06) BOTH 3-perf Super 35 for 2.40:1 release). That is certainly not definitive proof, but certainly solid argument that neither Super 35 for 1.85 (or anything other than 2.40:1) or 3-perf, in general, can be called "common". You are absolutely right that adding the zero to 2.40:1 is mathematically incorrect, but it is a common standard to represent all aspect ratios with a value of 1 (x:1) as a two decimal number. 2:1 being the exception (which is not a commonly used ratio).


 * I would also argue that Super 35 is a "format" in that you need physical modification to the cameras (recentering lenses) and different physical gates. I suppose that depends on how were defining "format." LACameraman 00:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 3-perf not only makes sense if you're going to need to use intermediate conversion on Super 35, but it is absolutely the most obvious choice for shooting 16:9 TV, as it is the exact same aspect ratio (and has been used to this effect on shows such as "The West Wing" and "The Sopranos"). It also gets an awful lot of usage for 35 mm origination meant to stay in video (TV drama, commercials, and music videos). As far as Super 35 for 1.85 (sometimes called Super 1.85), here are some films which have used it: The Constant Gardener, Goodfellas, A Life Less Ordinary, Jason X, Lemony Snicket's a Series of Unfortunate Events, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, The Godfather Part III, Drop Dead Sexy (also 3-perf), The Two Jakes, Evolution, Shallow Hal, The Fisher King, The Bonfire of the Vanities, High School High, Communion, and Fried Green Tomatoes. That's just some of what I could find on IMDb, which also must be regarded as an incomplete source as many titles don't have full technical info yet. It is obvious that the main usage of S35 is to get an anamorphic print without many of the disadvantages of anamorphic origination; furthermore it is far easier to get a 1.85 print from a normal width 4-perf system in current usage. However, I think that the list of credits clearly shows that Super 1.85 has significant mainstream usage (which will likely only rise as DI becomes a standard finishing process). In fact, it's arguable that all future productions going to DI will always shoot either Super 35 or anamorphic, regardless of final aspect ratio. Furthermore, the entire discussion tends to overlook the vast field of non-feature work, which has a far higher tendency to use Super 35 and 3-perf due to the lack of need for a print. Every modern telecine machine supports both Super 35 and 3-perf, as do all preview theater film projectors, which even have special lenses for "Super 2.35" and "Super 1.85". Emmanuel Lubezki in particular is a great fan of Super 1.85, and also used it for The Assassination of Richard Nixon and The Cat in the Hat. This topic was in fact recently brought up on a cinematography.com thread (which also cites Malcolm X as a Super 1.85 film).


 * Excellent response. I completely overlooked Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, which is indeed covered in AC during the months I looked and is indeed a Super 1.85 film. I conceed that it is used much more often than I was aware of. You're also correct that I am not considering non-feature productions as there is little verifyiable tehcnical information on music videos, commercials and even television that is available. LACameraman 22:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Now as far as Super 35 as a format, it isn't one. It's a property of a frame which simply defines the width. It has no projection standard, just some more commonly used routes, but has been used to shoot what has been shown as 35 mm prints, 70 mm prints, and video standards. Each of these has different properties and uses the negative dimensions differently. It does indeed affect the lenses and the gate, but as it has no clearly defined standards with regards to the rest of the system of origination and projection, it generally is not a format per se, although often referred to as such. Semantics? Maybe. Girolamo Savonarola 22:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't know "Academy Flat" isn't a correct term. A 10,700 hits on Google for the term didn't clear up things either. Thanks for correcting me. I fail to see, however, why you removed the term "Flat". The exact wording I used was "often referred to as ..." Apart from the term 'flat' being correct or not, it's an undeniable fact that the 1.85 ratio is often referred to as "Flat". You might not agree with that usage of the term, but this is an encyclopedia, people expect this kind of information to be in it. Therefore, even "often (not entirely correctly) referred to as Academy Flat" would be valid sentence. MrTroy 21:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, 10k hits including a lot of non-film ones. Search for "Academy flat" film gets less than 2000. Furthermore, as per our policy on Google test, Google checks popular usage, not correctness. It cannot alone be used as a criterion for inclusion. I agree that flat should be included, but just because many people use an incorrect term doesn't mean that we have to perpetuate a misnomer. And one which I've never heard amongst either camera people or projectionists. Girolamo Savonarola 21:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You wrote: Google checks popular usage, not correctness. Exactly. That was precisely my point: it's not a correct name for the ratio, but it IS one that's often used. And perpetuate a misnomer? If used like "often (incorrectly) referred to as Academy Flat", we aren't perpetuating it at all. In fact, we're saying it's an incorrect usage, while we are including it in the article (because this is an informational article after all: people will come looking here for an explanation of the term Academy Flat). MrTroy 21:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I would agree with this usage. I think that's a good idea. LACameraman 00:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, when I looked up the term, most of the articles using it were rife with misinformation about the subject of aspect ratios at large. Not even all of them could agree on what "academy flat" was - some called it 1.33 (which is actually full silent frame). So I would rather stick with the terminology which is used by those who actually work with it on a day-to-day basis, as the terminology has accepted meanings and has universal meaning across the subject. If you can find some citation outside of the internet, it might be more acceptable, I would imagine. (And if you do have some reference of the sort, I would be curious to see it.) Girolamo Savonarola 21:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As stated earlier there is no such thing as "Academy Flat." "Flat" however is an official designination for anything non-"scope" (non anamorphic), but mostly utilized in reference to a 1.85:1 film having been photographed with spherical lenses. LACameraman 00:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think there may be some confusion with 1.33 and 1.37, although I will yield to those with more expertise. It makes sense that 35mm films without sound tracks were originally 1.37. When space from the side of the picture was taken for the optical sound trcaks, it made the picture narrower to 1.33 (not wider from 1.33 to 1.37). Online articles are all over the place on this. I have no idea where magnetic tracks entered the picture and how/if they affected this. Vince Stone75.75.46.195 (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * When the optical track was introduced, the entire frame size was reduced, both height and width, for aesthetic considerations, and the resulting ratio was 1.37:1. jhawkinson (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"Theatrical Aspect Ratio"
I removed the following section from the "Original aspect ratio" section of the article:


 * However, the term original aspect ratio can be ambiguous. That is, a movie can have more than one OAR. A good example is Robert Rodriguez's Once Upon a Time in Mexico: the original aspect ratio for theatrical release was 2.39:1, while Rodriguez decided that the DVD aspect ratio had to be 1.78:1. As the latter is also a valid aspect ratio - because the director himself approved it - the movie actually has two OARs. It would be clearer, therefore, to use the term theatrical aspect ratio (see below) instead of original aspect ratio.


 * ===Theatrical aspect ratio===
 * Theatrical Aspect Ratio is a home cinema term for the aspect ratio or dimensions in which a cinematic film was originally shown in movie theatres. Usually this is the same as the OAR (see above). However, when explicitly meaning the ratio as seen in cinemas, theatrical aspect ratio is a more accurate term than OAR.

First off, because the film Once Upon a Time in Mexico was in two different aspect ratios does not eliminate the OAR of the film. James Cameron often shot movies in Super 35 mm so that he could have a 2.40:1 (not 2.39:1) theatrical release, but a full frame 1.33:1 video release with no pan and scan The Abyss is one such example. Cameron has been quoted as saying, on video - he preferrs the 1.33:1 version. That does not eliminate the original aspect ratio (OAR) of the film. Directors and cinematographers VERY OFTEN have to "protect" for multiple aspect ratios - but it is only really possible to compose for one. If a film is getting a theatrical release, that one ratio is the theatrical ratio.

The top portion of the section I cut is a note for the Once Upon a Time in Mexico article, as trivia, that Rodriguez himself approved the new aspect ratio for the video release - it does not create a new category. As for the second passage, I'm not familiar with the common usage of "Theatrical Aspect Ratio" at all ("Original Aspect Ratio" is the common term to define the theatrical aspect ratio). If you can cite sources that this term is in use, then this second half of the section belongs back in the article. LACameraman 18:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "it is only really possible to compose for one. (aspect ratio)" I can tell you from personal experience that this is nonsense.  Every shot is going to have it's own theoretical "best" aspect ratio.  Close-ups, and anything involving vertical motion are best at 4:3 or even narrower.  People sitting and talking are best around 16:9, crowd shots and landscapes are best at wider ratios.  This is why comic books have different aspect ratios for practically every panel.  (And rarely go wider then 16:9.)  In a film, having multiple "intended" aspect ratios is a simple matter of planning for them during the shoot.  You shoot pulled back, and reduce either vertically or horizontally on a shot by shot basis.  And occasionally you run a second camera for an alternate take.  All the Pixar films (since a bug's life?) are true multi aspect ratio, because they can expand, crop, or reposition any shot easily.Algr 19:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Algr - with respect to your experiences, as a professional cinematographer and as one who has held conversations with the top cinematographers of the world on this very topic - you would absolutely be in the minority on that subject. In fact - I would recommend you re-reading Vittorio Storaro's Univisium proposal, which we have been discussing at length, as his entire concept behind that proposal is to unify aspect ratio and never compromise the image. Letterboxing was invented to preserve the intregrity of the original composition. With extremely rare exceptions (that prove the rule rather than violate it) films have only one aspect ratio. There are not multiple aspect ratios within a single film - and composition is not based on a theoretical "best" aspect ratio, but based on THE chosen ratio for the film. Regardless of opinion, however, the argument remains - are there sources for the term "theatrical aspect ratio" as a separate definition from "original aspect ratio"? LACameraman 20:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * First off, because the film Once Upon a Time in Mexico was in two different aspect ratios does not eliminate the OAR of the film.
 * No it doesn't. The question is: which is the OAR? Rodriguez composed it for 1.78:1, and then matted it to 2.39:1 because he thought the audience was expecting this. However, when he got bad reviews (about the composition being too cramped vertically) he decided to remove the mattes for DVD release. (At least, that's the story how I've read it.) Now, it's obvious that the theatrical AR is 2.39:1. But what is the OAR? Many OAR-enthusiasts would say OAR is how it was shown in theater, while cinematographers would say 1.78:1 is the OAR (because it was composed that way). Like I said --> ambiguous.
 * ("Original Aspect Ratio" is the common term to define the theatrical aspect ratio)
 * It's the common term indeed, but that doesn't mean it's the correct one. As this is a home cinema term (like the article already says) it will proof hard to find a reference for the term theatrical aspect ratio -> like OAR, it's used (and probably invented) by consumers, not by cinematographers. But does the fact that the term was invented by non-professionals mean it doesn't deserve to be on Wikipedia?
 * are there sources for the term "theatrical aspect ratio" as a separate definition from "original aspect ratio"
 * As I said it won't be likely to find a professional source for this, but of course I can show you that the terms are indeed used separately. Coincidentally, when I searched on Google the first result was a review about Rodriguez' movie again:
 * 2.35:1 is the theatrical aspect ratio, yet 1.78:1 is the native aspect ratio, and apparently the preferred ratio by director Robert Rodriguez. So, what exactly is this film's OAR?
 * As you can see, home cinema enthusiasts DO see a difference between OAR and TAR. And as OAR and MAR are both described as 'home cinema terms', I think TAR deserves to be in the article too. It has never been said that TAR is an official cinematography term, so that wouldn't be a reason to remove it either. MrTroy 08:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr Troy - I never ment to imply that the terms needed to be official cinematographic terms - they certainly aren't. They just need to be verifiable and in common use, per Wikipedia standards. Just because a specific term might be more applicable, if you're inventing it and it's not used by home theater magazines, critics, online reviewers - then it's not a real term. OAR is a term that is now ubiquitous in reviews and in technology publications discussing video releases of theatrical films. I don't know Rodriguez's story - but you certainly can't use him as a reliable example as Rodriguez is the exception to nearly every rule in filmmaking. If the term isn't in common usage, it doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article. Verifiability No original research Citing sources. LACameraman 20:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Then answer this:  What is the OAR for Fahrenheit 9/11?  In the theaters it was (I think) 1.85:1, but most of the footage is cropped SD news video.  (Which suffered IMHO.  I think it would have been better if they had left the sides of the screen black, and kept the video 4:3.)  Does OAR refer to how the footage was meant to be seen when it was shot? (4:3) ...or to what the director did? (16:9) ...or what the audience saw? (1.85:1) Algr 20:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And here's another one: Fantasia/2000. It was originally released in IMAX, (4:3) but then saw theatrical release in widescreen.  The DVD is 16:9.  So which one is "original"?Algr


 * I'm sorry - I missed this note. I'm NOT attempting, in any way shape or form, to define OAR or have any steadfast rule for how the term is applied. I'm merely questioning "Theatrical Aspect Ratio / TAR" as a valid, commonly used term - and thus far I see no evidence that it is in common usage as to deserve it's own section in this article. Personally, in my opinion, the answer to your question - all footage in 9/11 would have an OAR of 1.85:1 - regardless of where it came from originally, it was compiled in that film at that aspect ratio. Fantasia always had an OAR of 1.37:1. It was cropped and re-released 2.0:1 in the late 50's and the same situation happened in 2000. The Original aspect ratio of the film is 1.37:1. But each person may intrepret that differently - there is no steadfast rule. LACameraman 22:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * if you're inventing it and it's not used by home theater magazines, critics, online reviewers - then it's not a real term.
 * Inventing it? Of course not.
 * First of all: an Altavista inquiry for "Theatrical Aspect Ratio" NOT original gives 19,300 results. That pretty much proves by itself that I didn't -invent- the term an sich.
 * Secondly, here are some online reviewers using the term as a separate term from OAR:
 * DigitallyObsessed: 2.35:1 is the theatrical aspect ratio, yet 1.78:1 is the native aspect ratio (...) So, what exactly is this film's OAR?
 * DVDBeaver: RoboCop was shown theatrically in 1.85:1. 1.66:1 is (director) Paul Verhoeven's preferred Aspect ratio. So we have included "Original Aspect ratio" for both.
 * Another example of why OAR can be different from TAR: Kubrick's movie Dr. Strangelove was composed in multiple aspect ratios, 4:3 as well as 1.66:1. On most DVD's of the movie this concept has been applied: from scene to scene, ratios would switch between 1.66 and 1.33:1. The theatrical aspect ratio however, was just 1.66:1 the whole movie. One could say the OAR is 1.33/1.66, while the TAR is 1.66.
 * Finally, I fail to see why Rodriguez can't be used because he's the exception to nearly every rule. Exceptions are the only examples you can give for this discussion, because for non-exceptions the OAR would be equal to the TAR. MrTroy 21:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * MrTroy - I was almost persuaded, actually, until I looked at the two sites you referenced. One merely uses the three words together "theatrical aspect ratio" - not as a defined term, but as a simple description. I can say "overexposed raw negative" but that doesn't mean ORN is a common term. The second site (DVD Beaver) actually incorrectly uses "Theatrical Aspect Ratio" as a universal lable for "widescreen." 1.78:1 was NOT the theatrical aspect ratio of the Robocop Trilogy.
 * Very interesting about Dr. Strangelove that's not anything I've heard before. Unfortunately Gil Taylor is in poor health and I don't have a means to contact him. Do you have a resource for this? I'll look too. For nothing else than an interesting historical bit of information.
 * Further, without being petty or overly argumentative, I can do a Google search for three random words: Yellow Dog Bird and return 13,2000 hits - that means nothing. But, quite obviously we differ on "TAR" as a valid term and, as of yet, I am not persuaded. We should probably open it up to a vote by other Wiki editors and see if we can find a consensus. All the best, LACameraman 22:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge, the only 1.33 bit of Dr. Strangelove is the nuclear test footage used at the end. But the projectionist wouldn't have changed the lenses and aperture masking at that point - which means either that it was meant by Kubrick to be cropped to 1.66 or it was pillarboxed on the sides intentionally. Either way, source footage ratios ultimately yield to the intended projection ratio. That would be both the original and theatrical ratio. As far as the argument as a whole: the original aspect ratio vs. the theatrical one - the theatrical one is the first intended one, and thus is the original ratio. Unless you can find an example where the DVD is released before the theatrical print in a different ratio, I don't see how you can overcome that simple fact. Girolamo Savonarola 23:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, a Google search for "theatrical aspect ratio" TAR results in 25 hits, none of which uses TAR as an acronym. Whereas "original aspect ratio" OAR pulls 14,900, almost all of which use OAR as an acronym. Either way, Google tests only indicate popular usage, not correctness. Girolamo Savonarola 23:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * @Girolamo:
 * Don't attack me on the TAR acronym: as you can see, I didn't use that in the article. I only use it in this Discussion section because I don't want to type the whole term again and again. I realize it's not a valid acronym. And Google indeed only indicates popular usage, but that's what this is all about, right? It's not an official term anyway, just like MAR isn't (but that one is in the article). In fact, searching for "modified aspect ratio" MAR results in only 47 hits.

That's actually a solid point. Perhaps MAR should not be in the article, either. LACameraman 20:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * @LACameraman:
 * DVDBeaver actually does not use TAR for 'widescreen'. The reviewers working for that site are in the business too long to mix up terms like that. The details for the R2 DVD read 1.85:1 Theatrical Aspect Ratio and the explanation reads RoboCop was shown theatrically in 1.85:1. It's true that they incorrectly put 1.78:1 Theatrical Aspect Ratio for the R1 DVD, but that's obviously just a mistake - given the fact that in the text below they say the TAR is 1.85:1.
 * For Dr. Strangelove I refer to DVDBeaver again, it explains about the multiple aspect ratios, theatrical release, and how the idea worked out on DVD.
 * I should note, by the way, that I appreciate the tone of this discussion. On other occasions this sort of discussion was ended with I'm-the-expert-so-listen-to-me statements. I'm happy we're able to discuss this in a civilized way. Have a nice day, --MrTroy 08:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And Google indeed only indicates popular usage, but that's what this is all about, right? Well, I wouldn't object to a very brief aside merely mentioning erroneously used terms. But as per Avoid neologisms, where editors disagree about the use of these neologisms it is best to err on the side of not using them. Girolamo Savonarola 10:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Neologisms are new, previously nonexisting, words. For example, the verb to Google {something} would be a neologism. A term like Theatrical Aspect Ratio can hardly be qualified as being a neologism.
 * Secondly, the only problems WP seems to have with neologisms is that A. they fall under own research, and B. they aren't verifiable. Clearly, point A is already disproved by the 19,300 hits for the term - even in my dreams a term invented by me wouldn't be on so many web sites. As far as point B is concerned, I'm working on that. It's not easy to find reliable sources because, as per Wikipedia policy, blogs and forums aren't valid references. I already gave to links to online reviewers using the term though, and not only that: they use the term with a different meaning than OAR. MrTroy 13:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"Unless you can find an example where the DVD is released before the theatrical print in a different ratio, I don't see how you can overcome that simple fact."  The original Battlestar Galactica from 1978 was shown on TV in 4:3 before a shortened version was released in US theaters. Algr
 * That wasn't even intended for theatrical release originally - it was filmed to be a TV pilot, and they rushed it out the door for a quick cash-in on the Star Wars wave. See the WP article. Girolamo Savonarola 17:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And yet it was a much better film then such 'pure' cinema as The Black Hole or Battle Beyond the Stars. :) Algr
 * Heh, I'll have to trust you on that one. Haven't seen any of those three! :) Girolamo Savonarola 20:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Final word?
Can we make a decision about this matter? I've given 2 sources that use the term theatrical aspect ratio, with Google you can find hundreds of forums the term is used on (doesn't prove that it's a valid term, but does prove the term is in wide use), and I've given examples in which the theatrical aspect ratio differs from the OAR (Once Upon a Time..., Dr. Strangelove). I think if MAR deserves a spot in the article, TAR does even more. MrTroy 14:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I vote Yes. It is less ambiguous then "original aspect ratio", and I've given three examples of movies where OAR and TAR are different.  (a fourth: Exorcist: The Beginning - was shot in 2:1, TAR was 2.39:1 against the director's wishes.) Algr 17:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Can I propose a sub-section to "OAR" that does not utilize "TAR" as a term, but is, rather, entitle it "Theatrical aspect ratio" and brings up the examples you both have stated above. I'd also suggest, if "MAR" is not a valid term (I wasn't sure when I made the edits) that the section there be altered as well. Only "OAR" should remain. "MAR" should be a sub-section of "OAR" with a title of "Modified aspect ratio" reading pretty much as it does now with out using the capital letters or acronyms. Would that be a solid compromise? LACameraman 18:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I don't know. TAR is a term that exists next to OAR, not as part of OAR. Wouldn't placing it in a sub-section to OAR suggest that it's not a separate term? MrTroy 06:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * lol... That's the whole point of the discussion. It's NOT a term. It's an observation. "In some cases the Original Aspect Ratio is debatable because the theatrical aspect ratio, which normally defines the OAR, differs from the "Original" aspect ratio as in these examples..." ... "When widescreen films are transferred to video the are often transferred in modified aspect ratios that differ from the OAR. The controversy of this practice came to the public perception first with laserdisc technology then through the proliferation of DVDs. Broadcasters and distributors who alter the OAR are now required to place a disclaimer at the front of the presentation stating that the "Movie has been reformatted to fit this screen"..." etc. Both variations of OAR can fit cleanly into one category without stating that either TAR or MAR are actual terms. Be bold - make the edit and let's see if it works. LACameraman 17:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Two four oh?
What is the relevance of the "two four oh" bit? It appears to me just to be the phonetic representation of "2.40". It's certainly not a written term (Googling "two four oh" returns no results using the term in reference to the aspect ratio). And I think most English speaking people know how to pronounce 2.40... MrTroy 21:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * lol... I'm not set on having it there, I merely put it in as a way to describe aspect ratio for someone who didn't know the common way to say it - is it "two point forty"? is it "two and four tenths"? is it "two by four oh"? "two dot four oh" - just as a helpful notation as Rob Hummel did in the ASC manual. If you feel it is superfluous or out of context, I have no objection to its removal. LACameraman 23:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, if you think it's necessary to include the pronunciation, it's fine with me. But I suggest a rephrasing then (such as: pronounced: "two four oh". Because the way it is now, it suggests it's a valid written term. MrTroy 06:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I say delete it. We don't emphasize pronouncing 2.35 as "two three five", either. Girolamo Savonarola 20:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Well... How 4:3 and 16:9 is pronounced? I don´t know how the ":" is pronounced. "for"? "by"? "to"? "colon"? Sorry, but I´m not an English native, so I need this type of explanation. I think that LACameraman helped when said how "2.40" is pronounced because I think that this article is not meant to be viewed only by the people that has the field experience to write it. I would pronounce "2.40" as "two point forty". JeffersonRyan 10:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have always heard it as "four to three" and "Sixteen by nine". I never noticed that I was saying these differently from each other until just now.  Where on earth did this come from? (The danger of too much reading, perhaps?) But I know I've never heard anyone say "for" or "colon".  Algr 18:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I would think that you could use "to" or "by" interchangeably; both are accepted ways of verbally expressing a ratio. Girolamo Savonarola 22:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually I would say that's incorrect, regardless of what is convention. "By" indicates multiplication, as in 2x4 (two-by-four), a 2" by 4" piece of wood (area of 8"). "To" is the only correct preposition here; "4 to 3", as in "there are four horizontal units to every group of three vertical units". "For" is also acceptable, grammatically speaking, but it's rarely, if ever, actually used. CGameProgrammer 18:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I have been a projectionist for nearly 20 years - and during this time, I have known many projectionists who have been around longer than that. 2.39 is not rounded to 2.40, as that would indicate a different aspect ratio. Colloquially, the nickname "scope" (short for "CinemaScope") is often used in place of the actual (numeric) aspect ratio. However, it must be pointed out that "scope" really only indicates that the image must be projected via an anamorphic lens. The projected image need not have the 2.39:1 aspect ratio. For example, 2.35 was once the common 35mm "scope" aspect ratio (eventually replaced by 2.39) and 16mm "scope" is 2.66. (Most of "Biutiful" is not 2.39 and yet the entire film is "scope.") So, the numerical expression remains the most explicit indication of any aspect ratio. If SMPTE wanted a 2.40AR they certainly had the authority and opportunity to have specified it as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.56.48.226 (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

History of 16:9
I removed the following recent addition:

"The choice of 16:9 HDTV was intended as a middle ground between TV's 4:3 aspect ratio, and 1.85:1. 2.40:1 was not often used in the 1980s and 1990s, but ironically has become more common today."

Unfortunately the information is incorrect. 16:9 was NOT an aesthetic compromise between 4:3 and widescreen - it was the limitation of tube technology that did not allow the safe creation of a wider picture tube than 1.78:1. It was a BRAND NEW aspect ratio that had NEVER been utilized prior - purely as a technological limitation. It is not an irony that it has become "more common" since the late 80s as it was INVENTED in the late 80s and forced upon the industry as a defacto HDTV standard. Now we're stuck with it. LACameraman 17:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You misread that last part. It doesn't say 1.78:1 is ironic, it says 2.40 is. MrTroy 20:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh - You're absolutely correct, I did. I missed the period when reading - even when re-reading. Although this statement is very true (actually it's research that I'm in the middle of now) - it needs to be backed up. I can expand on this with my data later today. Sorry for the mistake. The first part of my removal, however, still stands as the information is incorrect. LACameraman 21:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Tubes?! WTF?  We are talking about the mid to late 1990s, all the new cameras were using CCDs.  Scanning 1.85:1 on a tube was no more difficult then letterboxing.  200 Motels was shot in widescreen with tube-video in 1971, so there was certainly no technological limitation in the 1990s! Algr 23:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Algr - you're off in your timeline. 16:9 was a created as a standard for HDTV TELEVISION sets. It didn't come about as an origination format until AFTER it was decided to manufacturer wide screen TV sets - which in the late 1980s - were all CRT tubes. The 16:9 format was decided on and locked in long before any manufacturer made a 16:9 camera. LACameraman 01:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't say 16:9 WASN'T made for HDTV, I said that this was not a technical limitation. They didn't want 1.85:1 or wider because it would excessively crop or pillarbox 4:3 TV, and because it was just too wide for realistic TV viewing environments and would have made sets too small. Algr


 * Algr - you're off in your timeline. 16:9 was a created as a standard for HDTV TELEVISION sets.
 * As far as I know, Philips' 'invention' of the widescreen CRT in 1992 had little to do with HDTV. HDTV didn't come into the consumer market until years later. MrTroy 08:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's right, I forgot about that. They had all these 16:9 sets that only scanned 480i.  I guess they were for DVDs, (Or letterboxed VHS?).  So the DVD format, and those sets, introduced 16:9. Algr 15:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

"...and forced (16:9) upon the industry as a defacto HDTV standard." Whereas everyone agreed on Univisium?
 * Well, 16:9 is a hardware standard built into the video cameras, now. And more than one guy does use it. Girolamo Savonarola 15:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay... These discussions are getting a little silly - and the always start flying off the original subject. Univisium is a proposed standard that has been adopted by no one but Vittorio - and then only partially. HDTV is now a multi-standard format in wide use around the world. HDTV research started in the late 1970s primarily by the Japanese company NHK with their MUSE system - although it is said that Panasonic had an 1125-line HDTV monitor in 1974. Notice I said "monitor" not "camera"; HDTV was established first as a means of broadcasting images - not as an origination medium. They wanted a widescreen feel - and went to the extreme that technology CRT could safely allow - which was a new size at 16:9. They first demonstrated the MUSE system - an 1125 line CRT (1035 viewable - 1035i, not 480i) in 1981 with a 1.66:1 (5:3) aspect ratio. By 1987 the FCC was already making rulings on HDTV standards in the US. To my knowledge Steven Poster, ASC was one of the first (let's just say "one of the earliest" as I don't have any reference to the "first" and don't want to make unsubstantiated claims) cinematographers to work with HDTV cameras (NHK/Sony Camera through Panavision) in 1991. He writes about his experience in the August 1991 issue of American Cinematographer. As far as CRTs - they are extremely delicate devices. The electron guns in a CRT require a high vacuum and the envelope must have the intregrity to resist the force of several atmospheres of pressure. Not to mention major insulation necessary for high voltage reqired to push the electrons and the X-ray shielding necessary at the envelope... CRTs have limits to their size to maintain safety and stability - it's the reason why we don't have 50" or 70" CRT TVs - they cannot be safely manufactured to that size and have any stability. What was discovered when HDTV was pushed farther into the "widescreen" territory was that a 16:9 screen was the widest aspect ratio screen that could be safely manufactured. As farther argument against the added line in the article, the mathematic middle ground between 1.85:1 and 1.33:1 is 1.59:1 not 1.78:1. It is ridiculious to presume that 1.78:1 was an asethic compromise betwen 1.33:1 and 1.85:1 when 1.78:1 is 26% wider than 1.33:1 but only 4% less wide than 1.85:1... not a very sound compromise. There was very little consideration to concerns regarding letterboxing or pillar boxing - believe me, if you had been around the ASC in the mid 90s, you would have heard a LOT of screaming about this new format and the lack of consideration given to the artistic ramifications of it. Back to the subject at hand - the line of ""The choice of 16:9 HDTV was intended as a middle ground between TV's 4:3 aspect ratio, and 1.85:1." has been removed from the article as it is factually incorrect. I do appologize for the removal of the second line regarding the use of 2.40:1. Although the two statements did not belog together and without data to back it up - it is meaningless. I understand that you guys are very well meaning in your Wikiediting and commend you for trying to make Wiki a better place - but I heartfully request that you be much less defensive about your additions and back them up with a reliable, respectable and citable published source - as is Wiki policy. Verifiability, Reliable sources. LACameraman 17:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you are in the same boat with us, LA. Do you have a reference for 16:9 being due to a limit on tube technology?  I've been following the subject since the '80s, and I've never heard that one before. Algr 15:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, no, Algr. It's "original research" first-hand knowledge of what was happening at the time. Discussions with ASC members and prominent members of the community. It's also based on overwhelming evidence to the contrary (safety with CRT manufacturing and the simple math). You'll notice, however, that I am not putting this information in the article (as I haven't found a published source for it yet - but also haven't looked very hard) so I'm relieved of the burden of a citation (but I'll look harder out of respect for my fellow wikipedia editors). LACameraman 16:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, my information is from published sources. The problem is that it is not on the internet, but trade publications of the time, so it takes longer to recover articles that I read 10 years ago in another city's library.  Nevertheless I am certain the reference is there and it is only a matter of time before I track it down.  Another bit of info:  The limit on CRT size is doorways in American homes.  Anything shipped into a home must be under 30 inches in at least one dimension, otherwise you can't get it through your door.  You can make larger tubes, but they have to be larger in all three dimensions, and that would make them sellable to too small a market. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Algr (talk • contribs) 18:21, 9 July 2006
 * You provide a reputable reference and I'll accept the change and forgo protest. However, if you merely consider the math, your comment is unfounded. There is no logic whatsoever as 1.78:1 being a compromise between 1.85:1 and 1.33:1. I'll try to get out today and get a resource. Interesting note on the doorway dimension - something I had never thought of. However, that would not negate the creation of a CRT for industrial use. To my knowledge 40" is the largest CRT manufactured - which would mean the largest 16:9 CRT possible is 19.59" x 34.872" (40" diagonal)-(which would be over 300 pounds). If it were possible to manufacturer larger than 50" we would be using them all the time in concert and industrial venues. You know how amazing a Jumbotron CRT would be? Even a 2' CRT... 34" is the largest 16:9 (about 16.5" x 29.5") CRT I've found. Regardless, find a reputable resource to back up your statement and you'll shut me up. LACameraman 19:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not a mathematical compromise, but an aesthetic one, where they sited a study saying that people reacted best to aspect ratios from 16:9 to 2:1, and that this was the balance where letterboxing/pillerboxing was least objectionable. I recall wanting to read this study directly and see how they established this, but I never got around to looking for it.  It seems to me that the reasons why various specific aspect ratios were chosen ought to be central to this article.  There was also an assertion in the text that 16:9 would be the universal standard for everyone and it would end all the compromises with pan-and-scan and letterboxing.  This left me with the impression that filmmakers today are actively undermining any universal standard by shooting more 'scope,  or rejecting it simply because it comes from television.
 * "CRT for industrial use." Yes, this is possible, but with projection sets available, I expect the market was too small to support a factory that could make this.Algr


 * I've seen a couple studies like the one you're referring to over the years. Primarily aimed at the Golden Mean - which is much closer to 1.66:1 than anything else. Although I'd agree with you that including the original intention behind any particular aspect ratio would be great - it's a very difficult thing to reference, unless you're actually speaking to the inventor (as in the case of Univisium), but that's rarely possible. I've seen theories that 16:9 was derived as a simple mathematical doubling of 4:3 (16 = 42, 9 = 32), which is only a theory, but mathematically sound. I've seen theories that it is a mathematical compromise between 2.35:1 and 1.33:1 (which is not true, it's actually 1.84:1, but proponents of this theory have very complicated math to support their hypothesis). We should comb through the text and remove POV that you're referring to "assertion in the text that 16:9 would be the universal standard for everyone and it would end all the compromises with pan-and-scan and letterboxing." I'll take a pass in a moment. And just to argue the point a step further, a projection CRT has nowhere near the quality and contrast possible with a straight-tube-viewing CRT. There's no comparison. LACameraman 23:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised that the Golden Mean was never a common aspect ratio for movies. For centuries it was practically the law for paintings.  I agree with you about CRTs, but the question is how many of such giant CRT sets could you actually sell, and to whom?  Bars might want them for football, but they might prefer bigger screens to better ones.  Algr 01:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section
After reviewing this article again - I would vote for a deletion of this section. Without reputable resources for these opionions, it has a weird non-neutral POV. It also makes a wierd arguement much more biased to broadcast of the images rather than origination, which - in my opinion - is backwards. LACameraman 23:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The first few sentences are self-evidently true, but then it does get into problematic recommendations.  The second paragraph isn't criticism, it describes how aspect ratio can be utilized artistically. Algr 01:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I took a pass at cleaning up this passage. See how it reads to you (and anyone else following this conversation, of course). LACameraman 02:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks much better to me. Girolamo Savonarola 20:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Visual Comparisons
The horizontal vs. vertical comparison of pictures in "normal" and widescreen mode is biased by the fact that the photographer may either choose a different lens, or choose another position, to capture any given scene. Thus the nose and tale of the shuttle, or the panoramic view of the palace, doesn't necessarily have to be cropped off when viewed in different aspect ratios.

Although there is consensus that Widescreen is better for panoramic pictures, and Academy format is better for portraits, the illustrations (the shuttle and the palace) in this article show this rather vaguely. This way their intent is easily interpreted as subjective, and I'm not sure that was the original meaning. Thus such differences is better "shown" by written explanation rather than by illustrations. The real difference between Widescreen and Academy format is of course the actual plane of the rectangels (superbly illustrated by the circle with different sized rectangles), and not what they illustrate - the latter which is completely subjective anyway.

The photographic illustrations do lighten up the article, but without a written explanation clarifying these important facts, the article would work better without them. --Kebman 20:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

list of common aspect ratios
In response to recent re-added entries in the list which I have subsequently deleted: these were deleted because it is a not a list of generic ratios or even aspect ratios in general. The article is about imaging technology aspect ratios - photography, film, and video. Perhaps a separate article on generic aspect ratios would be germane. Linking to the golden ratio or silver ratio probably is better done in the See also section instead, as these are not directly germane to the topic of this article but have some indirect relation to it.

I've reverted the 16:9 ratio from 1.777....:1 to 1.78 because it is common and standard industry practice to round the ratio to two significant digits beyond the decimal. The full ratio is given in the integer form in the description. You'll also find that virtually all aspect ratios are also rounded like this - see list of film formats and do the math on the dimensions; very few formats actually divide perfectly into a ratio with two or less post-decimal digits.

The image was also removed from the article mainly because it assumes the longer dimension to be the vertical one, which is incorrect for the ratios in the list as used in image technology. It also is more a comparision with non-image ratios mentioned above. Given the subject, it doesn't actually supply information useful for the topic. IIRC, that graphic was created for a different subject on the German Wikipedia? What probably would be an ideal graphic is one which is extremely wide (4.00:1 or greater) and shows all of the listed aspect ratios either from a common center or perhaps even more usefully, with a common side. If left as an open graphics format, this would also allow future editors to add more aspect ratios in usage to it and thus avoid obsolescence. Girolamo Savonarola 19:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Then move the article to aspect ratio (imaging technology), and let the old article have a full list. - Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you'll find that aspect ratio and the pages it links to are mostly adequate for the information. Girolamo Savonarola 19:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Caption for Image: Common Aspect Rations
The caption for the common aspect ratios image could be better. While it's technically true that the red square is the largest in area and the blue the smallest, it's not apparent to someone not familiar with basic geometry. Why not simply state the ratios of the three boxes leaving out whether they're more used in tv or cinematography... Focomoso 23:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed from 'Common aspect ratios'
I removed the following from the list of common aspect ratios:


 * 1.504:1: The aspect ratio of some digital SLR cameras, such as the Nikon D70.

I think this 0.27% difference from 1.5:1, which amounts to eight pixels wider than 1.5:1 in a 3008x2000 image, is too insignificant to give notice to here. A quick check on dpreview.com for exact camera image dimensions showed that Canon cameras (of the six or so I tested) were always right on the nail at 1.5:1 but cameras from other makers, mostly using Sony sensors, had pixel dimensions a few tenths of a percentage point off from the exact ratio. This is trivia, perhaps worthy of note in a footnote at the bottom of the articles on those cameras if at all but certainly not in a general list of aspect ratios. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Why 16:9?
Why was 16:9 chosen over other ratios? I heard that it was the same as a human visual perception aspect ration (no source). Could anyone write an explanation? thx --sin-man 06:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * When the 1.77:1 aspect ratio was proposed by Kerns H. Powers, nobody was creating 16:9 video. The popular choices in 1980 were 1.33, 1.67, 1.85, 2.20 and 2.35. Powers discovered that all of those aspects would fit within a 1.77:1 outer rectangle and when over-lapped, all shared a common 1.77:1 inner rectangle. Hence, any of the "common 5" can be neatly cropped or matted to fill a 16:9 screen.
 * This preceding excerpt from the article is true of any ratio. Even a 1:1 square can both surround all the other ratios and also fit inside all the other ratios.69.20.226.218 (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think he means it precisely fit. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. No rectangle can "precisely fit" inside one of a different aspect.  The story I recall was that 1.67 would be seen as eurocentric, and 1.85 as americentric, so it was thought that an average between them would make a good universal standard that could replace both, thus reducing the number of common aspect ratio.  (A 2:1 or wider CRT would be too inefficient and expensive to consider.)  Algr (talk) 09:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See here. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A shame really, personally I like 2:1 (18:9), it's also more computer efficient being a power of two. And incidentally the diagram at the top of the page, the overlapping/combined inner rectangle is pretty close to 2:1 heh, and been around since 1998. Interesting link Girolamo, thanks!80.202.16.112 (talk) 01:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Since the method shown in the diagram gives the quite different result of 2.04, it cannot be what Kerns Powers intended. According to http://www.cinemasource.com/articles/aspect_ratios.pdf cited as an external link at the bottom of the article, Powers did not normalize the various rectangles as shown in the diagram to constant diagonal length but rather to constant area. The aspect ratios of the resulting "inner" and "outer" rectangles are therefore exactly the geometric mean of the two extremes used, 4/3 and 2.35, or 1.77, which is only coincidentally close to 16/9 or 1.78. The article seems to suggest that the rectangle to be protected is the inner rectangle in Powers's scheme as superimposed on the screen dimensions to be used. This obviously produces an unnecessarily small protected area. There is no reason why the protected area cannot be the largest rectangle of the prescribed aspect ratio that will fit on the screen used. Nor need that rectangle be centered on the screen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.54.81.214 (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

1.85 misunderstandings
When the 1.85:1 standard was new, cameras continued to record 1.33 images, while etchings in the finders showed the camera operator the 1.85 borders within the taller frame. Films were then shown on 1.33 projectors with metal masks in their apertures to display only the area within the 1.85 borders. Some camera people did not understand this system and thought the 1.85 etchings actually framed off microphones and even the top of one set (The U.S. Senate chamber in a Roger Corman film I've now forgotten) which were duly displayed when the films were shown on 1:33 TV.Jim Stinson 02:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

article quality
An excellent article overall. Thanks for all the TLC, head-scratching, agonizing, and research.Jim Stinson 02:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

One thing I couldn't find here...
Hi - I came here looking to find out whether India uses 16:9 or 4:3 as a TV standard - I couldn't find it on this page, or on any other pages! Tried looking at PAL / NTSC / TV Standards etc... Maybe there should be a section here dedicated to aspect ratio usage internationally? --Tomhannen 09:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Calculation
There should be a section that describes how to calculate the aspect ratio of a given resolution. Could someone who knows how to do that please add it?--Allthenamesarealreadytaken 00:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you're asking. It's the ratio of height to width.  Dicklyon 01:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

But how do you actually calculate the ratio? For example, given a resolution of 1024x768, how does one perform the calculations that result in the correct ratio of 4:3? In other words, show all the necessary mathematical steps to come up with a result that is an aspect ratio. --Allthenamesarealreadytaken 19:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Division. Girolamo Savonarola 01:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * First divide the width by the height.
 * a) 1024/768 = 1.3333
 * Then find a whole number that, when multiplied by the result of 'a', yields another whole number.
 * b) 1.3333 x 1 = 1.3333 - duh.
 * b) 1.3333 x 2 = 2.6666 - no good.
 * b) 1.3333 x 3 = 4 - got it!
 * Since these aspect ratios usually are invented as whole number ratios, you'll probably get an answer fairly quickly. But some aren't. 2.35 doesn't seem to add up to anything.  I don't know if any of this worth adding?  Algr 07:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Film ratios had to deal with real physical space instead of pixels, so the technical requirements imposed themselves on the specifications - which is why the list of film formats specs are so varied. Even 1.85 isn't really exactly 1.85, it's just a fraction which rounds to that number. The idea that aspect ratios are always whole numbers on both sides wasn't practical until the image could be measured in discrete pixels. (As for 2.35, it was originally to be 1.33x2 - 2.66 - but sound issues forced it to be narrowed up a bit. Then projection requirements bit into the vertical dimension, so now it's actually 2.39. I can assure you that it's not a whole number ratio, nor was it supposed to be.) Girolamo Savonarola 09:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 2.35:1 is properly 47:20. (2.39:1 = 239:100 [what can I say, it's a prime number.]) It's poor convention to use decimals in a ratio just so you can have a 1 on the right side, though this makes the ratio easier to understand and scale upwards. D Boland (talk) 03:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Misleading Images in the Visual Comparison Section
This section is supposed to contain two images to compare between the two aspect ratios. Since the vertical starting point and ending point is indeed the same, why on earth do the images contain a slight size difference? Again, I'm referring to the vertical pixel size. This would contradict the notice saying that they have the same vertical size and would definitely mislead anyone who views this, since the difference in size could be taken as a narrower vision in the 4:3 image, while a quick check of the vertical starting and ending point would lead people to believe the images are the same size. I see no good reason why the 16:9 image would be 10% vertically bigger than the 4:3 one. If appropiate, someone should fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victordelpanno (talk • contribs) 01:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Someone probably miscalculated. I picked 200 pixels high so I could multiply by 1.33 and 1.78 in my head and adjusted them. Dicklyon 05:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Update: "Two aspect ratios compared with images using the same diagonal (because comparing formats on the basis of the same horizontal or vertical size gives a false impression of one format superior to the other):" I think the same area would be more appropriate than same diagonal, but these images don't satisfy either. They have the same vertical dimension; the 4:3 one is just cropped from the 16:9 one. Rather than uploading new images (someone feel free to do this if you think you can make good ones), I'm going to change the description so at least that is accurate. --74.46.213.148 (talk) 14:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC) Actually I noticed the thumbnails were sized differently, but still did not have the same diagonal (perhaps error in calculation?), so I changed them to be approx. the same area, which I think works well for comparison's sake. This section still needs work though (or possibly just removal), because the original images still give the wide ratio an unfair advantage, as the narrower one is simply cropped from the wider one and hence is smaller, both in pixel dimensions (does not apply to thumbnail) and in field of view (applies to both). --74.46.213.148 (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The horizontal line that the roof forms misleads one to think the wide format is better because you can see more of the building, and there is a vertical row of chairs that would be a good representation of the 4:3 aspect ratio but is left out of the 4:3 photograph. If the original could be cropped to emphasize the chairs in the 4:3 and the building in the 16:9 this would not mislead the reader, but would show strong suits of both formats. 204.155.56.3 (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Aspect ratio should always be measured by width, with height being static (for direct comparisons). So (4:3) 1.333333333:1, (16.9) 1.7777777777778:1, 1.85:1, 2.35:1 and so on. Thus the wider image should have same height but wider view. I have corrected this in the article. Do not confuse aspect ratio with different resolutions with different aspect ratios. This article is about aspect ratio, and not the resolution of the actual image. Remember, aspect ratio is x:1 and anything else would just confuse people who read the article to learn about it, there is enough linked articles that dive deeper into resolution and aperture and film size so they can dig deeper if they want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.16.112 (talk) 09:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. To make a fair comparison you need to keep the area constant. --85.225.84.72 (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the diagonal, the vertical and the horizontal clearly shows the benefit/drawback of all three ways of pan'n'scan. The only issue with the images is that the original image was 16:9 I believe. Ideally a new 1:1 image should be made, then create 3 new pairs based on that. We must also remember that wider IS better, lets face it, how many have a 9:16 screen vs 16:9 screen? 4:3 is slowly being pushed out and 16:9 the dominant one due to digital TV, consoles, PC widescreens. in a decade many of these discussions will only be of mild historic interest. Movies has always been "wide" to some extent except way back in the beginning, TV has been 4:3 but is now becoming wide finally. I know it's hard to be neutral, but with 16:9 being the "new" "standard" it is not possible to be truly neutral. I like the 3 pairs of images, if anyone has better images by all means go for it, I'd be fine with it just being some SVG vector art as long as it clearly shows that 4:3 loose part of the image in the horizontal and that 16:9 loose in the vertical, and that in the diogonal both 4:3 and 16:9 looses in their horizontal and vertical respectively.Rescator (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

2.39:1
I think it would be good to add a 2.39:1 graphic to the svg-pictures at the beginning. I think this format is as improtant as 3:2. I cannot add it because I don't have any program installed to create .svg images. --Qaywsxedc (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll try to remember and create one. Cburnett (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Previous and presently used aspect ratios
Why is the Aspect ratio (image) table so contentious?

Jhawkins contends that the whole number ratios do not belong because the article is about movies. Crissov contends that the article is more than movies and both decimal and whole number ratios should be present.

Nevermind Dicklyon called Crissov's edits vandalism, which is so completely ridiculous that I have trouble with that whole "assume good faith" bit.

I have to side with Crissov in that the article is clearly not just about movies. If it is then the article name is completely wrong. Subject content aside I still think whole number ratios should be present specifically because THEY ARE SYNONYMOUS. 4:3 and 1.33:1 mean the exact same thing. It's entirely preference and to say one belongs and one does not is so completely a violation of NPOV.

Nevermind that the main link to List of common resolutions is whole numbers and the other main to List of film formats is decimal. Clearly both are used and both should be represented. And I completely disagree with Jhawkins that it promotes confusion and makes it hard to read. If there is, then a 2 sentence blurb before the table can dispel any confusion easily. Cburnett (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There are several reasons why it was standardized to decimals - first of all, not all formats have whole number equivalents. (Despite the hamfisted attempt at deducing them, the ratios are not exact; see the technical specs for each format on the list of film formats page, and read the technical literature on how the dimensions were determined.) That essentially makes most of the whole number equivalents OR. Second, standardizing to a constant dimension allows for a clearer conceptual comparison of formats. Giving two whole numbers essentially requires them to then mentally convert to an x:1 ratio anyway in order to understand which formats are wider or not. My guess is that most people will not naturally deduce 16:9 to be wider than 1.66:1 and thinner than 1.85:1 unless they see that 16:9 = 1.78:1. Furthermore, as far as I am aware, outside of screen resolutions, the only two verifiable whole number ratios in film and video are 4:3 and 16:9, both of which are mentioned in the table. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:NOR only applies to wikipedians: if it can be sourced then it's not original research. I don't know the history of aspect ratios but hashing it out in edit summaries isn't working.


 * Which formats have sourceable whole number ratios? I think 3:2, 4:3, and 16:9 are given.  (Note: that question is directed to anyone.)  Cburnett (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * NOR would apply to ratios whose whole number ratios are deduced instead of sourced, so yes. As I said, many of the whole number ratios added and subsequently reverted were not the actual format ratios, but approximations of them made by the editor. That would be original research. The three you mention above, however, would be sourceable. They are also already mentioned within the table. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What I said in my es was, "(rv. This article is in the motion picture context, where ARs are given as ab.c:1, not a:b. Listing both in close proximity promotes confusion &makes the table hard to read. More info is not more clear)". It was somewhat abbreviated. I believe this debate has come up before, and many editors are tired of it, and I suspect that is why the label of vandalism came up.


 * I would focus on my second point: adjusting the table so that it lists whole-number ratios next to canonical aspect ratios makes the table hard to read. It is more difficult to scan looking for numbers when there is twice as much area to scan. Compare:


 * with


 * Adding a few sentences beforehand would not make the table easier to scan. And what would the benefit be?
 * As usual, GS's points are good as well &mdash; it's inappropriate for an encyclopedia to make up terms from whole cloth and place them on equal-footing next to industry-standard terms (11:8? Come on!).
 * If the best argument for inclusion of these numbers is that they are synonymous, that is no argument at all. We can add synononyms to wikipedia articles 9 ways to Sunday and it will not make those articles better. Hence "editing."
 * The two other articles you cite are problematic for comparison as well. List of common resolutions is clearly written from the digital perspective, not the MP film perspective; it is about resolutions, not aspect ratios. List of film formats, while a Herculean effort, in my view fails the usability test, and I wouldn't hold it up as an example. It's not good for casual browsing, and it blows you away with a canvas of information. If you really need to find some piece of data, you may hunt and find it in that table, but the operation is not convenient, easy, or pleasant. (All that aside, it does use the ratio:1 format). jhawkinson (talk) 05:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * First, and most importantly, labeling a good faith edit by a user NEVER EVER EVER EVER qualifies as vandalism. Dick should be ashamed of himself for doing so even if this has come up before.  You and I can't know the history of every article nor the discussion on every article for its entire history.  If you can't put up with it and deal with it then maybe you need to reevaluate your participation with Wikipedia because it's not a problem that's going to go away.


 * I have no problem reading either table. If I want to find 16:9 then I either have to calculate that in my head or read the description hoping 16:9 is included somewhere.  Critical reading (16.9 ~= 1.78) is always more consuming than scanning (finding 16:9).  We can argue about readability either way so it's not a good point for discussion because no one will be right.  My favorite color is red, and you're wrong if your's isn't the same.  That kind of "no one will be right".


 * Your bit on "9 ways to sunday" is entirely hyperbolic and you know it.


 * My point is pretty simple. To argue which way is "correct" is entirely a personal opinion and excluding the other is wholly a violation of NPOV.  Bickering it out over edit summaries and continuing to revert each other (even stepping up to false labels of vandalism) is, well, pathetic.  WP:3RR exists for a reason.  Especially when it takes a 3rd party to start discussion.  If the numbers are made up on the spot in an attempt to fill in cells then that's another issue.  Mind you it's an issue not brought up until I started discussion.  Cburnett (talk) 06:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I apologize. It was simple carelessness on my part; I thought the random looking characters, numbers, and repeated name indicated vandalism; if I had looked more closely I should have noticed it was intended as a serious set of edits.  If any of the three consecutive edits had had an edit summary, I would probably not have given it such a cursory look.  Anyway, sorry; but I'm not going to feel any shame about this simple error. Dicklyon (talk) 06:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to Support including both the decimal and integer ratios in the table as listed above. I find that version of the table perfectly clear, and more useful. It is a simple fact of life that some aspect rations are usually referred to in integers, (4:3, 16:9) and others are usually referred to in decimal. (2.39) The 'motion picture context' notion does not seem useful to me, because the aspect ratios for TV and Film have always been connected, and most discussion about aspect ratio involves how movies look on video. The only time most people have to think about aspect ratios is when they are playing DVDs on their TVs, or choosing what mode to set their camcorder to. Algr (talk) 07:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I tried to understand why the ratios are as provided, the table didn’t help much. The normalised decimal fractions are helpful if you want to compare ratios and perhaps when you deal with them every day, but not at all if you want to understand how they came to be. For example “1.37” makes more sense if you know it’s actually 1.375 or 11:8. Simple mathematical conversions, even if they are not obvious on first sight, are not considered original research, by the way. I still don’t understand 2.21/2.20:1, so I shouldn’t have included 11:5. I’m not sure whether the removal of all the “:1” is acceptable.

I’m sorry I considered the changes small and uncontroversial, so didn’t provide an edit summary (and also didn’t use preview enough). Anyhow, I do not care that much about this article, so if it hadn’t been for the accusation of vandalism, I probably wouldn’t have noticed the unexpected reversion at all. — Christoph Päper 13:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Reverting once again. As Girolamo Savonarola and I both mentioned above, it is not reasonable to derive whole-number ratios and present them next-to industry standard terms. 4:3 and 16:9 are accepted terms, but 11:8 and 11:5, etc. are not. Presenting derived or speculational information in an encylopedia is problematic, it results people reading Wikipedia and then using terminology that appears only in Wikipedia. This discussion is not a Support/Oppose debate. Real legitimate points have been raised with your edits from people who've put a lot of work into this page, and you should address them. At the moment it looks like you're blindly ignoring them, and I don't think that is what you want to convey?


 * There are several other problems -- you've removed the height scaling of the images, but the point of the section is that the standard for theatrical projection is "common height" between formats, just like how a widescreen television is the same nominal height as the 4:3 TV, just wider. Perhaps the article should be more clear on this, but reversing the sense in the midst of other controversial changes isn't good. The "Fractions of small integers..." table seems to add confusion and have little practical utility. Maybe I'm missing something (?), but its existence does not seem justified. jhawkinson (talk) 14:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * And as far as the whole integer ratios go for most of these formats, they're wrong. Close, but wrong. To give an example, SMPTE standardized ratios for Academy ratio (ie 1.37:1) are 0.866 in x 0.630 in for camera aperture (1.3746032:1) and 0.825 in x 0.602 in for projector aperture (1.3704319:1). You have to also keep in mind that many of these numbers are used by convention and are not precise - hence why many people call Academy films 1.33:1 or modern anamorphic films 2.35:1. When someone calls Academy 1.375:1, it should be obvious from the above info that they're a) rounding up from the exact number, and b) using the camera aperture instead of the projection one (which is what will be the final presented ratio). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * To me plain reverting instead of correcting / updating seems rude and unproductive (i.e. only remove contestet ratios). The images had arbitrary, unhelpful size designations, although it should be pointed out that they have the same height. The table, whose caption isn’t optimal, was originally intended to help understand intermediate formats such as 8:5 better by normalising either height or width (e.g. 16:9, 16:10 = 8:5, 16:12 = 4:3) in lines and rows.
 * I assume SMPTE really specifies 22 mm × 16 mm, which provides a ratio of exactly 1.375. But you are probably right, movie aspect ratios seem to be more like designations, not measures. — Christoph Päper 10:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Visual comparision
The pictures used in the comparision are not NPOV, they are clearly in favour of widescreen. Usually, the cameras i've seen will only cut off a bit in the upper and lower parts of the picture to make a 16:9-picture, including some filmcameras, modern ones. I have seen a few cameras that (When changing from 4:3 to widescreen) will remove some parts from the upper edges and add some parts to the right and left (On almost every wide-screen standard camera I've seen, it is like this). This version used, when widescreen adds a bit extra in the left-right edges is clearly POV, and not standard. It should therefore be changed. Nisseman (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read the definition of WP:NPOV. Not conveying your point of view doesn't make the article not NPOV.  Cburnett (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know that, and that is what I say. The pictures are not NPOV now, as they are clearly in favour of widescreen-format. To be NPOV they should show that the wide-screen shows more in the right/left-edges but less in the top/bottom, and 4:3 format shows less in the left/right-edges, but more in the top/bottom-area. If that isn't NPOV, I don't know what to say. Nisseman (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That would make sense if that was how ratios were implemented, but that generally isn't the case - usually one dimension is held constant when an image is reframed for a new ratio. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, you need to understand NPOV better. NPOV does not mean the absence of a POV.  Everything MUST HAVE a POV of some kind.  NPOV means what WP:NPOV says it is.  Go read it.  In short: if you want to include your POV then you need to source it because it purports "the way things are" while the existing example makes no such assertion, just showing two images with different ratios.  Cburnett (talk) 21:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Aspect ratio is measured using the horizontal as a constant, thus x:1 is the common way to refer to this. As I stated a couple places above in this discussion page, aspect ratio article is about aspect ratio, it is not the purpose of this article to state that 4:3 or 16:9 is better than the other. 16:9 is simply wider than 4:3. Adding resolution to it opens up a whole other headache when trying to inform newcomers to what aspect ratio really is. Aspect Ratio and Resolution are separate and should be kept so. A layman would have no idea what to think if they saw a resolution accurate comparison of two different aspect with two different resolutions. A 1900x1200 has more information than 1680x1050, but yet is still not wider in aspect. Now if it showed more or same in width and then more in height then we are threading into the headache of Vert+ vs Hor- and Ver- vs Hor+ the Widescreen Gaming Forum has a nice FAQ clarifying many of these issues. Currently the article does not mention resolution (but links to articles that does in a few places) this consistency should also be kept for aspect ratio examples. Meaning resolution independent. The corrections I did today ensures this, and avoids newcomer confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.16.112 (talk) 09:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, someone reverted the change I did, so to try and please "everyone" I have instead added two more comparisons, so now there are diagonal, vertical, horizontal. To further improve these comparisons I think what is needed is 3 different images. The current one is obviously a 16:9 image that is cropped for the 4:3 one. That is fine but should be used for the vertical size comparison. The Horizontal comparison should be a 4:3 image with the top and bottom cropped to highlight 4:3 benefit. And likewise a new image is needed for diagonal where a original image is cropped both at the top and bottom and the left and right to illustrate that you both gain and loose in both. Unlike the vertical and horizontal where only one aspect gains. And that missing citation on sqaure being cheaper than wide need to be found or remove the text (my advice) leaving this section to deal with only visual comparison examples.


 * Here's my problem with the diagonal comparison - it makes absolutely no sense (as far as I can tell) to a discussion regarding aspect ratio. If you want maximum area for a diagonal, then simple math (or our circle diagram) will show that wider ratios have less area given that dimension. That may be interesting for a television purchase - maybe - but it's not really relevant to discuss with regard to images to be shown in that format. This is because unless the format matches the screen ratio, it will require either letterboxing or pillarboxing to create the correct format ratio. (Yes, you can stretch the image, but that defeats the entire exercise anyway.) So these idealized examples using a still image which is then stretched and/or cropped to try to illustrate this actually demonstrate nothing. You either have a squarish image that wastes horizontal space on a widescreen display, or a wider image that wastes vertical space on a fullscreen display. If you want to play around with squeezes, crops, and scans, then we have a separate article devoted to that topic. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Improved the images some more (80.something above was me), the horizontal and vertical examples have the respective crops. (uploaded a 16:9 example2 image) I can't think of anything else to explain this better. At least the 3 examples (especially horizontal and vertical) reflect the three most common variants people may encounter across all forms of physical and electronic media. Maybe some rewording or explanatory paragraph should be added above them? and the diagonal may not be pixel perfect but take a measurement tape and check their diagonal they should be close. I agree Girolamo, personally I'd prefer to see the diagonal one gone as it basically makes no sense. (see the text in parenthesis above the diagonal example in the article) The vertical and horizontal shows more properly what aspect is all about in relation to the image scenery itself which is the main thing in focu here (pun intended) like 4:3 camera vs 16:9 camera for example. But someone seems to insist on the diagonal thing so, rather than start a editing war I'll just leave it at that and join in on whatever majority vote there is for dropping the diagonal example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rescator (talk • contribs) 05:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

16:10 why not included?
Why isn't 16:10 included? It's widely used in computer screens and is very close to the golden ratio! I had it included a while ago and someone deleted the entry saying "it's a resolution, not a format", but the fact is most wide computers screens are physically 8:5 (or 16:10). Rnbc (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is not about computer resolution sizes - there is already an article for that which is linked at the top. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I develop a lot of stuff for the 16:10 ratio, which is by detention an aspect ratio. As for the "it's a resolution, not a format", 1680*1050 is a resolution... ZellDenver (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

16:9 in Europe
Wouldn't this list be much better suited for a separate Broadcast/TV standards article where 16:9 as well as HDTV adoption around the world is covered? With a map and whatnot even. I do not see much use in the list here in this article though, this article is messy enough as it is. 80.202.16.112 (talk) 11:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

2.35:1
I came here seeking information on 2.35:1 but you guys have it listed as 2.39 - I've gone over this article three times and cannot find any information on why DVD's have it listed as such, even those the standard is 2.39. I know you guys want to be technical and elitist but an explanation of this would be nice. Thanks. 66.108.167.71 (talk) 06:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

"Dramatic fall" effect
If your screen is vertically constraint you can't emphasize vertical dimsnsion. Period. A story about one "innovating" filmmaker cropping the sides of the screen to make a dramatic effect is just an anegdote. If the effect was real it would be widely copied (I'm looking for scientific word "reproduce" here)   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.183.58 (talk) 12:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Anamorphic format. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I think whoever wrote 2.39:1 instead of 2.35:1 has a special case of compulsively adding .04 to aspect ratios, since according to Bordwell & Thompson's Film Art, Academy Ratio is stated to be 1.33:1 and NOT 1.37:1, an AR I've never heard of, to be honest. Armadillo01 (talk) 05:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested image
The raster image comparing the aspect ratios should be re-created as a vector image and uploaded on commons. » Swpbτ • ¢ 01:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

16:9 timeline
When did most televisions shows start shooting 16:9? Anecdotally, I can say it was mid-nineties. Babylon 5 and ER started in 1994 and was always shot wide (though effects were not done wide in B5's case). The X-Files switched in 1997. Buffy, which started in 1997, was always shot wide. Other shows seem to still be shot 4:3 today. Is 1994 the earliest use of 16:9? The article doesn't really establish a timeline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ace of Sevens (talk • contribs) 06:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hatnotes
I can't help thinking the five separate hatnotes are a bit confusing, not to mention untidy. Is there a way to rationalise them? Bob talk 19:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Use of Colon vs Ratio
Why are people using U+003A COLON instead of U+2236 RATIO (∶) which is the correct codepoint for expressing ratios like this? Would anyone object to it being changed? — Nicholas (reply) @ 19:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

16:9 and DVD
There is a sentence in the current article that says

Anamorphic transfers onto DVD horizontally squeeze the original widescreen image to store the information into a 4:3 aspect ratio DVD frame.

My understanding is that the usual NTSC situation is that the DVD frame is 3:2 - specifically 720x480 - and that DVD players either morph that into 16:9 or 4:3 -- as directed by a flag -- upon playback. Could someone with knowledge of this issue correct that section of the article? Thanks, Stuart H. Alden (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

clarify attempt
Critical content or graphics are framed to fit within the 1.33 raster space, generally working since centered information or characters aren't often perceived as photographically distracting though certain elements especially motion graphics can feel oddly centered or placed for the 16:9 audience.

The above sentence appeared in the second paragraph from section Aspect ratio (image) is unclear, so I tagged it with clarify. I rewrote it as follows with added citation requests. Could an expert check it says what the above intended?


 * Content creators frame critical content or graphics to fit within the 1.33 raster space. Audiences generally do not see such centrally framed information as distracting. However, audiences of 16:9 ratio scenes can find odd moving elements that are centrally framed.

-84user (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

5:4
1.25 ratio is not included in this topic whatsoever yet google links me here as if it were. I have no interest in arguing that its not included because its usually a computer screen resolution more than anything else, but what, no camera on earth uses 5:4 or something? every single 1280 x 1024 image is an edit? why so picky? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.228.193 (talk) 13:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Aspect ratio fail
What do you think about the idea to discuss the topic of wrong aspect ratio? AR often gets messed up; this is not only common on youtube but also can be seen on TV and DVD productions, resulting in unpleasantly stretched or squeeshed pictures. There are people (such as myself) who are are movie and video fans and who are bothered by distorted pictures. Apparently, there also are people who not only are not bothered by that but also don't notice at all, that the picture is distorted. There are two blogs dedicated to this topic, which I would like to bring to your attention:
 * Are some people visually dull? http://www.graphpaper.com/2007/03-19_are-some-people-just-visually-dull
 * Aspect Ratio Fail – Am I the Only Person Who Cares? http://blaggleblog.com/?p=1749 —Preceding unsigned comment added by White rotten rabbit (talk • contribs) 14:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes I'm interested and bothered by these problems. Hope this can be developed. For example are 1.85 films actually squashed into 16:9? Are 1.37 films squeezed into 1.33 DVDs? And when converting DVDs to video, how to set it to get the right result ... George Slivinsky (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Plea to merge 9 overlapping articles
This Aspect ratio (image) article, while certainly helpful, is running in parallel with 8 other articles:
 * Computer display standard
 * Display resolution
 * List of common resolutions
 * Widescreen
 * High-definition display resolutions
 * Template:Widescreen monitor resolutions
 * Template:Monitor resolutions
 * Template:HD resolutions

Also look at these:
 * Computer monitor
 * Aspect ratio

It's one of those cases where authors should be looking beyond the page they've landed on or maintained, and come together in a way that will strengthen everybody's work and deepen everyone's insights. I don't know how the merger process is authorized, but this is a plea to get this thematic mess organized.

Please see the talk pages on each of those pages for ALL comments related to this issue.

Thanks for your attention. A.k.a. (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion page is much more interesting than the article.
I'm a technical writer, movie lover, and once-serious amateur photographer. The main article not only has spots of bad writing and confused exposition, but leaves more questions answered than unanswered, especially for someone (such as myself) who /thought/ he had a good understanding of aspect ratios. I found it both thin and confusing. Though I'm tempted to make a few changes, this article has problems that cannot be fixed with a light edit -- one of the most-significant being the issue of scope (ar-ar). This article is more about the history of motion-picture aspect ratios, which deserves an article of its own. If the author would like, I'd be happy to work with him, if only to point out the problems in detail. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 12:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

List of stations
Please stop adding back that list of stations broadcasting in 16:9. Almost all stations have already switched to 16:9, so I see really no point in keeping that list.--Ancient Anomaly (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Is that true world-wide?   — Jeff G. ツ 22:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know, but it's certainly true in Europe.--Ancient Anomaly (talk) 22:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * What is to be gained by removing that list of stations in Europe broadcasting in 16:9? It certainly looks like a loss.  That list has been in the article in some form since this edit 09:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC).    — Jeff G. ツ 22:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's incomplete, unsourced and unencyclopedic. Should we list all stations broadcasting in color? We should list exceptions, not the norm.--Ancient Anomaly (talk) 23:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine, and it would have been nice to explain that in the edit summary. Anyway, listing exceptions would be a good idea. Catgut (talk) 23:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If we've passed the tipping point to where stations not broadcasting in 16:9 are the exceptions, then yes, it makes sense to list the stations not broadcasting in 16:9 instead of the ones that are. As for the sourcing, if the info is easily findable at the stations' respective articles, then I don't think it needs an additional reference here. —C.Fred (talk) 23:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

So you don't know world-wide and the same goes for Europe because is not true the majority of countries and stations are 16:9 already. Let's keep the lists as they are now, with countries with their majority of stations already switched to 16:9 just citing the exceptions and countries with a mix citing what stations are 24h or only some programs or even 'bad' 16:9 transmissions. Pointless is just what you did erasing a great part of an article because you felt like. if the question is 16:9 on TV all around the world the lists have to be there. And if you need sourcing go to stations' respective articles as C.Fred said. Please stop vandalizing this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.83.58.113 (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Where in Europe is 16:9 not the main aspect ratio?--Ancient Anomaly (talk) 01:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Quite predictably, the stations' articles do not note 16:9 broadcast, as it is not notable...--Ancient Anomaly (talk) 01:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Well like Spain, Italy, Portugal, a lot of Eastern European countries... a lot of channels there are still on 4:3 aspect ratio or only a few programs on them are 16:9. So the lists about the channels have all sense. Please somebody stop this guy from vandalizing Wikipedia articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.83.58.113 (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)